WASHINGTON — A NASA procurement document provides details concerning the plans of several firms that received unfunded Space Act Agreements for business space capabilities in June, in addition to those that did not make the cut.
NASA chosen seven firms June 15 for its Collaborations for Industrial Space Capabilities-2 (CCSC-2) initiative. Those firms may have access to NASA expertise and data, but not funding, to support development of business space capabilities.
Amongst the businesses chosen for CCSC-2 agreements were Blue Origin, which appeared, in a NASA statement, to be working on a crewed spacecraft; and SpaceX, which offered to develop an “integrated low Earth orbit architecture” that used its Starship vehicle as a business low Earth orbit (LEO) destination, or space station. Neither the agency nor the businesses provided additional details on the time NASA announced the awards.
A source selection statement released by NASA earlier this month confirmed those plans. Blue Origin proposed an “interrelated LEO space transportation capability that utilizes its reusable Space Vehicle (SV), Latest Glenn launch vehicle, and other supporting elements.” The unique assessment of Blue Origin’s proposals found weaknesses from a scarcity of details, although the document notes that the corporate was in a position to address most of them in a later due diligence phase.
“I find that Blue Origin’s capability as a human space transportation provider is compelling, and the LEO economy at large would profit from the vehicle once developed,” Phil McAlister, director of business spaceflight at NASA Headquarters and selection authority for this system, wrote within the document.
The document also confirms that SpaceX is considering using Starship as a business space station. “Along with applications beyond LEO, Starship could significantly impact crew & cargo transportation and will itself turn into a big Industrial LEO Destination,” the document stated. NASA’s original assessment raised issues a few lack of awareness about Starship’s capabilities in addition to an uncertain schedule.
A 3rd company, Sierra Space, also proposed a crewed spacecraft in the shape of the DC-200 version of its Dream Chaser vehicle and a “Pathfinder” station using its inflatable module technology called LIFE. Tom Vice, chief executive of Sierra Space, said in a June 27 presentation that the corporate was preparing to launch a standalone pathfinder version of LIFE as soon as the tip of 2026 for business applications akin to biotech research.
McAlister noted within the statement that one concern he had is that Sierra Space’s proposal could overlap with its work with Blue Origin on the Orbital Reef business space station, which received funding from NASA in late 2021 for initial development work. He wrote that he concluded there have been “enough differences that I see value in providing support to the event of Sierra Space’s Pathfinder station and DC-200 crew transportation system.”
Northrop Grumman, which also received funding from NASA for business space development, received a CCSC-2 agreement for a “Persistent Platform” for business research and manufacturing. The choice document describes that platform as a human-tended free-flyer that may support its crewed station. As with Sierra Space, McAlister said he was concerned about overlaps with the corporate’s crewed station, but concluded that it might be complementary.
Two startups working on business space stations, ThinkOrbital and Vast, received CCSC-2 agreements despite some skepticism from the agency about those firms’ abilities to really develop them.
Within the case of ThinkOrbital, McAlister wrote that he was particularly focused on the corporate’s plans to reveal in-space welding, which he saw as a key technology that might find widespread use. “While I’m not convinced that ThinkOrbital is, at this point, a practical option as a business destination provider, I consider it may well achieve significant progress in its Construction Technologies for Space Applications (CONTESA) concept with the support NASA can provide through the CCSC2 Space Act agreement.”
For Vast, he said NASA’s interest was in the corporate’s plans to reveal artificial gravity by spinning its modules. “The benefits of the proposed destination with artificial gravity, if Vast is successful, outweigh the risks of Vast’s lack of experience and the chance that the substitute gravity might not be achieved,” he concluded.
The seventh CCSC-2 award went to Special Aerospace Services for an in-space servicing technology called the Autonomous Maneuvering Unit. Such a technology, NASA concluded, could have advantages for the broader LEO economy by minimizing the necessity for astronauts to conduct spacewalks to take care of business space stations.
Five other firms submitted CCSC-2 proposals that NASA rejected. Three of them were from firms working on space station concepts: Gravitics, Orbital Assembly (now Above: Orbital) and Space Villages (now Orbital Outpost.) NASA found weaknesses in each their technical and business approaches. The proposal from Space Villages, for instance, “lacks clarity on the corporate’s legal status, its facilities, and the status of its major partners.”
McAlister concluded that “ultimately, there have been other destination capabilities that had stronger proposals.”
The Ohio Aerospace Institute proposed to develop a business astronaut training facility. Nonetheless, NASA concluded that there have been significant weaknesses in its business approach and that the proposal sought the usage of unspecified NASA equipment and facilities for training activities that should not available for non-NASA purposes.
The ultimate proposal got here from Ernst and Young (EY), which didn’t plan to develop in-space capabilities but as an alternative provide some sort of consulting and design services. NASA rejected that proposal, noting that the corporate’s proposal “significantly lacked clarity on what EY would do and for whom.”